Mary Dudley - sending a girl to public school ahead of a boy

[Cortina]

Mary Dudley has written an article titled 'She's the One' and suggests if funds are there for either a boy or a girl it makes more sense to send the girl to public school.

A tongue in cheek response to Delingpole's piece last month.

Does make some interesting points, sorry don't have a link, they include:

Recent research shows that 45% of women earn as much as their partners and this percentage is set to rise. Investing in your daughter's education will likely enhance her career prospects.

Of the 4 (is it really only four)? Women in the cabinet 50% are privately educated.

Men are apparently more snobbish than women than choosing a partner?

Most aspirational men want a well mannered girl because only a woman has apparently picked up via osmosis picked up the right vocabularly and bearing and can adequately reflect their rank.

Kate Middleton, apparently, wouldn't have got a look in had she not been to Marlborough. Dudley considers all the 'doors to manual' jokes about her v entrepreneurial but ex air hostess mother. Sam Cameron and Frances Osborne are also apparently ex Marlborough and 'enhance husband's fortunes' as so refined?

State school girls less likely than privately educated peers to to land a v rich or grand man - if that's the goal.

Andrew Roberts says 'blow the money and don't send either child. I know plenty of state-educated girls and so long as they go to a decent university it's impossible to tell'.

Meh - both concepts are as stupid as the other to my mind - send your children to the school(s) you think will best suit them, out of what is available to you. If you can't afford to send more than one to an independent school, think very carefully about whether state school is genuinely the better choice for the others. If not, don't send any.

My grandfather was ahead of his time. He had three sons and one daughter (my mum). She was the only one to stay in school past 14 and the only one to go to university. His view was that boys could farm and do physical hard work but girls needed a proper education if they were going to have a chance of a career.

Being a farmer I think he hoped mum would do vetinary science and was somewhat disappointed when she did English followed by a B.ed but he never stopped her and always supported her. He always used to say the boys each got a patch of land my my mum got an education

I think Mary Dudley has a point - there is a certain sort of gilded marriage where men contribute cash and women contribute culture. Hence women are prepared to downgrade socially/educationally in favour of a man who earns a lot of money, and men are prepared to forego money for refinement.

I would.

My mother (batty as she is) was insistent at 16 that we should choose careers in case we wever had to support ourselves should we want to get divorced (her concern at the time).

It's taken me 20+ years to realise how right she is.

FWIW I think that girls, much more than boys, need a way of earning a living that they can call on throughout their life. (But I may change this if SAHDs become the norm ...)

Definitely - girls need a wider variety of skills that can be used flexibly throughout life as they are much more likely to have portfolio careers.

But that is entirely compatible with the cultured wife scenario I already described!

Interesting point, Bonsoir.

I think almost most importantly a woman needs a certain mental toughness/steely strength of character to succeed professionally, socially and emotionally. I am wondering whether a private or state school is more likely to help develop this trait?

I don't think the difference lies in the school but in the social class of her family. The women I know who are most successful in business all have a social axe to grind - they're all immigrants or lower-middle-class made good (to be very blunt). Girls from middle-class backgrounds who are socially secure don't have the same urge to climb socially so stop working so hard sooner!

Bonsoir you are saying re: socially/financially secure, they lack the 'hunger'? Certainly that's what I've observed with bells on.

Socially secure from their family background, financially secure thanks to their family background or, more probably, husband. Yes.

I know women with high-earning DHs who won't stop work ever because they feel they would "disappear" socially. Work (rather than their own personality/culture) is their main identity and means of social inclusion and status.

What sort of work do the women you mention do Bonsoir?

Lawyer, banker, senior manager in industry.

All quite high powered then.

Yes, with major time investments and commensurate impact on amount of time available for DCs/partner.

You have to be quite single-minded to be prepared to sacrifice that much!